Thursday, August 20, 2009

[islam] uninformed perceptions and strategic misdirection


Uninformed perceptions

In a very old post, now a bit outdated, the Chinese spoke of "strategic misdirection", referring to the U.S. policy in the area of Tibet.

That's another topic.

People like to have simple heroes and villains and that comes out in so many ways. It's easy to see Brown and Nu-Lab as the villain for the simple reason that they are the villain or one of the villains, selling our country down the drain to Europe and plunging us into astounding levels of debt because of their ambitious panacea. You can look at Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq and the U.S. will do very nicely as the villain in the eyes of a billion Muslims round the world, this view syndicated by the network of Imams.

We can listen to the sound of a prayer call at dawn in Clapham and wonder what the hell Britain has come to. The Muslims are the prime target in this country, apart from the politicians with their slavering jaws and snouts in the trough.

Always we are directed to cast some group as the villain. Who does the casting?

Here,

here

and here.

The group that always remains hidden does the most damage and having said this, you can smile indulgently and say Higham's off on another his rants about Them, whom hardly anyone, despite the Sonus articles, despite all the evidence presented, even despite warnings from U.S. presidents and other leaders around the world, believes exists.

It's the oldest trick in the book to strategically misdirect a people's ire. France and Germany did it mutually in 1914 for that nakedly prearranged war, designed to create abject conditions under which other agendas could be pushed. It was the case with communism in Russia. It's ever been the way and the communist bogeyman, though quite real, was also more than useful, just as the unworkable Star Wars plan was useful in taking a stick to the Soviets.

When people who are under the yoke of a system which still follows primitive practices, based on extreme violence and fearmongering from its own druids, are shown, ad nauseam, the infamy of the United States around the world, there is a tendency for people in Egypt and Indonesia to get out in the streets and cheer when two jets fly into a World Trade Center.

How could those people, kept in a primitive state of dependence, understand that when one talks of America, there are a number of quite different Americas? There's the Socialist Panacea America about to plunge that land into crippling debt in the next eight years, there's the cynical True Enemy America that Woodrow Wilson, Ike and others were so frightened of and then there is Middle America, from where just under half the readers of this blog come, just under half also coming from Britain.

No people in themselves, at the lower echelons, are necessarily evil.

But a people strategically misdirected, their media manipulating them into outrage in response to the induced cutting of available money and jobs in the economy, e.g. the expenses scandal, people observing what they see about them, these perceptions reinforced in media articles, are going to be quite ready, fed up, with barely suppressed anger, to inflict violence on the detested targets. In this country, the Muslim and black populations [two separate entities] are going to feel a little worried, as might women by the way.

It deflects anger from the politicians.

And how many times throughout history have the immigrants been the target - convenient scapegoats or in the case of Hitler's Germany - the Jews, however true or untrue their supposed crimes were? At Rothschild level - as guilty as hell and at the level which actually got exterminated - no more guilty than any other people who have their own prejudices and foibles.

Manipulated, again manipulated, led from one disaster to the next - that's what we all are, that's what the productive section of the community is induced into. So this is a passionate plea not to take it out on the people at ground level. When a large family of Muslims presents itself at the Gates of Heathrow, those daughters, sons and grandparents are not here to take over Britain - they're here for a better life. They don't understand that a large proportion of the population might take a jaundiced view of them.

The problem is the system they've nominally been subscribed to, not them themselves.

Tolerance and co-existence

My own bona-fides.

I'm a WASP, [not so] pure and simple and I need issue no apology for that. This is my home. However, I was once engaged to a Muslim overseas and was aiming for a similar state later with a second lady [non-bigamous, by the way]. Two girlfriends at one time or another were Muslim. I've worked for Muslims and taught Muslim children, as well as teaching in Jewish schools.

None of these people harboured any jihadi or zionist ideas in the same way that I've never harboured any crusading ideas. We got on famously and got on with life. In fact, about a year after 911, the American Ambassador in Moscow visited our town in Russia to find out the secrets of how Muslim and non-Muslim can co-exist.

One of those ways was by the intermarrying between the Russians and Muslims over time and that town had produced, by the way, the type of exotic female beauty that only such a union can produce. Of course there were crazed musselmen calling for jihad and Sharia law but they got about the same attention which the Khassidic Jews do in Israel.

Quite frankly, almost no one was interested in political or religious strife and that is the whole secret to peace - not to get too religious, except in one's own relationship with one's Maker.

I believe that there are many, maybe the majority in Britain and America, who would feel the same way - that we should just live and let live. My neighbourhood shop here is run by Pakistanis. I've never witnessed any words of hostility in that shop - quite the opposite and I'm sure any new immigrants who come to fit in, work and assimilate, are in a similar position.

No one seems to have an issue with it.

The Left-liberal media

And yet there certainly is an issue with Islam in the public arena and quite rightly so. There are two problems - the system itself, addressed below and then the Left-liberal media, such as the BBC, which is as biased as the Left-liberal and global socialist hegemony across the world, from Obama through to institutions of learning, even mighty Harvard and the appropriately named Faust. With these people, there is a process of debate which runs thus:

1. Do not address the question asked;

2. Take personal offence immediately and attack the whistleblower as being racist, sexist or whatever "ist" fits the bill, without having to address the issue itself;

3. Introduce, in a flood of emotion, various buzzwords like "tolerance", "democratic" or "fair-minded", neither defining them nor allowing that the other side might be motivated by these same feelings, speaking of what "we, Britain" believe in, owning the high moral ground and leaving only the base motivation for those opposed to the Leftist panacea;

4. Organize and send trolls to the media and across the blogosphere to mock the whistleblowers and marginalize them as dangerous kooks.

An example of this blind intolerance, masquerading as tolerance, was Stephen Sackur in Hard Talk, who refused to listen to what his guest Geert Wilders was really saying but wished to impose his own understanding upon the Dutch MP.

"You want to impose what you see as acceptable Dutch culture," said Sackur, imposing his own view.

He's talking, mind you, to a Dutch MP rated as the most popular in the Dutch parliament and lecturing him about a Dutch issue with particular local elements to it, though the broader issue is Europe-wide.

Geert Wilders is on the record as saying that Muslims are welcome as long as they do not participate in action designed to either bring down or reconstitute Dutch society along the lines of Sharia law. He says it is unacceptable that women should be mistreated, as in the time of Mohammed, in that the Netherlands is supposedly a modern, western society based on humanism and the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Let's skip over the "Humanism" bit for now. Humanism and humanitarianism are two entirely different things.

The whole thrust of his stance was that there are Dutch traditions and Dutch values and so immigrants and visitors willing to assimilate and accept the values and heritage of the dominant culture - Dutch - are welcome. But trying to impose alien values on the host country or run a parallel system of law and culture is way out of order.

This was the crux of the matter. He was at pains to say that the dominant culture, the traditional heritage is the one which should prevail, as it should in any country in the world.

The standard retort from Sackur was to make out that there were no intrinsically "Dutch" values and that what Geert Wilders was putting forward as "Dutch" values were, in fact, nothing more than a concoction of Geert Wilders' mind.

The overweaning vanity of the Left's attacks! The possibility that the huge popularity the man enjoys in his own country might just be because his country aligns itself, to a greater or lesser extent, with those values, did not get airtime.

Those with the "big tent", "all welcome", "let's tolerate anyone, no matter what and fund them while they're here" mentality say it's impossible, in this multicultural society, to determine what British values are.

Oh really?

Well, come with me and let me enrol you for a month in any English department in schools of extended English learning in Russia and you can learn what British values are, if you happen to have forgotten them. Because in these schools, in texts written by British educators from Cambridge et al is set out quite clearly what British values are.

One textbook widely used, Britain Today, has no problem whatever with the concept which the Left-liberals over here seem to have. For example:

Don't call anyone from the Celtic countries in Britain English. This won't be appreciated.

These texts address immigration, the reading habits of Brits, job figure breakdowns, attitudes of Brits from a series of interviews and even how to define the north-south divide in England. Russian school children seem to have no problem with the idea of what it means to be British - it only seems the Left of this country has that problem.

The school where I was Prep Head here had applications from many Commonwealth countries and again - the parents sent their children over for a British education and to learn British values. So this British Left attempt to throw the hands up in the air and claim, "Oh, it's impossible to say what British is and nor do we wish to say what it is because we're on this all-inclusive roll," is absolute bollocks.

Foreign parents send their kids here for precisely the reason that they know what British values are, what British opportunities are and somewhere along the line, somewhere in this most human of motivations, silently, without any fanfare, an insidious political system, masquerading as a religion – Islam – also worms its way in.

Misunderstanding Islam


Islam, first and foremost, is not just a religion, with precepts for living, such as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. It's far more than that. It has religious, legal, political, economic and military components, all interlocked, all-consuming for followers, either willing or press-ganged and Geert Wilders states that simple truth. The Asia Times, hardly anti-Islamic, having dealt with Kant and Ali Sina's extreme view of Islam as not being a religion at all, touches on the issue :

In an emotionally charged atmosphere, precise thinking is needed. Kant was wrong, but wrong in a way that helps clarify the problem. Ali Sina and other Muslim secularizers are just as wrong. I shall argue that Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. Religion is what makes Islamic political ideology so dangerous.

Islam ... seeks to prolong the life of traditional society indefinitely, by extending it through conquest. I refer here to mainstream Islam, ignoring marginal currents such as Sufism. We find in the practice of mainstream Islam hoary roots in traditional society, in strange juxtaposition with the most aggressive sort of universalism. For traditional Muslims, religion cannot be separated from the most trivial requirements of everyday life, I showed in the case of the teachings of Iraq's Ayatollah al-Sistani (Why Islam baffles America, April 16).

Islam acknowledges no ethnicity (whether or not one believes that it favors Arabs). The Muslim submits - to what particular people? Not the old Israel of the Jews, nor the "New Israel" of the Christians, but to precisely what? Pagans fight for their own group's survival and care not at all whom their neighbor worships.

A universalized paganism is a contradiction in terms; it could only exist by externalizing the defensive posture of the pagan, that is, as a conquering movement that marches across the world crushing out the pagan practices of the nations and subjugating them to a single discipline. If the individual Muslim does not submit to traditional society as it surrounds him in its present circumstances, he submits to the expansionist movement.


In other words, Islam, by definition, is expansionary and all consuming in nature. If moderates choose not to pursue that goal, due to their secularization, as in Turkey, Indonesia and parts of Russia, this changes the people but it never changes the goal of Islam itself. In Britain, there are other considerations as well, not least in non-Muslim reaction of the defensive Muslim community:

Oxford, once home to the likes of C.S. Lewis, now houses a giant Eastern Islamic Studies Center. If this were the only Islamic addition to Oxford, the mood would be less somber, but when Oxford citizens are forced to awake every morning to the Muslim call to prayer with the full consent of the Church of England, nothing short of conquest has taken place.

Britain's Muslim demographic is now so dominant that the British government recently began to allow Islamic civil and religious law, known as Sharia, to be enforced along side British law. But if religious tolerance is good, why is this a problem?

Simple - this is not an issue of religious liberty. Islam is not designed to co-exist with western civilization. It is designed to conquer it.

Getting hard data on the Muslim plan of domination, as distinct from non-Muslim reaction, is like finding a needle in a hastack but this, from Germany, can at least be quoted:

The Muslim Brotherhood—led by Ramadan and Himmat[23]—sponsored the construction of the imposing Islamic Center of Munich in 1960,[24] aided by large donations from Middle Eastern rulers such as King Fahd of Saudi Arabia who, according to a 1967 Sueddeutsche Zeitung article, donated 80,000 marks.[25]

The Ministry of Interior of Nordrhein-Westfalen states that the Islamic Center of Munich has been one of the European headquarters for the Brotherhood since its foundation.[26] The center publishes a magazine, Al-Islam, whose efforts (according to an Italian intelligence dossier),[27] are financed by the Bank al-Taqwa.

According to the interior minister of Baden-Württemberg, Al-Islam shows explicitly how the German Brothers reject the concept of a secular state.[28] Its February 2002 issue, for example, states:

In the long run, Muslims cannot be satisfied with the acceptance of German family, estate, and trial law. … Muslims should aim at an agreement between the Muslims and the German state with the goal of a separate jurisdiction for Muslims.

Organizations with alleged aims other than those stated:

Of all of Zayat's financial activities, the one that has attracted the German authorities' greatest suspicion has been his association with officials of Milli Görüş (National Vision, in Turkish). Milli Görüş, which has 30,000 members and perhaps another 100,000 sympathizers,[41] claims to defend the rights of Germany's immigrant Turkish population, giving them a voice in the democratic political arena while "preserving their Islamic identity."[42] But Milli Görüş has another agenda.

While publicly declaring its interest in democratic debate and a willingness to see Turkish immigrants integrated into European societies, some Milli Görüş leaders have expressed contempt for democracy and Western values. The Bundesverfassungsschutz, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, has repeatedly warned about Milli Görüş' activities, describing the group in its annual reports as a "foreign extremist organization."[43]

The agency also reported that "although Milli Görüş, in public statements, pretends to adhere to the basic principles of Western democracies, abolition of the laicist government system in Turkey and the establishment of an Islamic state and social system are, as before, among its goals."[44]

Is there any stated purpose of Islam? The aim of the second half of this post is to find out if there is anything solid which supports the contention or not and to admit if there's not.

Some quotes:

“Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals [the Jews] on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough.” (Al-Akhbar (Egypt), April 18, 2001).

Muslim Clergy Voice, Claims to Jerusalem and the Need for Jihad: (DFJ-JanFeb00) “...The entire Islamic nation has to act to terminate the Israeli occupation of the holy city and strengthen in it the presence of the Murabitun [Muslim warriors holding the front lines].

It is the religious [Islamic] duty [Fardh 'Ein] today, of each and every Muslim male and female... “Both east and west Jerusalem belong to the Arabs and Muslims because it is a Waqf land. Our properties in west Jerusalem are more than 70% of its territory and Israelis do not in fact have any land in Palestine...” (Sheikh 'Ikrimeh Sabri, the PA appointed Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, in the Friday sermon in the Al-Aqsa mosque [November 5, 1999], Al-Hayat Al-Jadida November 6, 1999.)

Syrian Television, September 9, 1996 “Palestine is from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea”: , Hussein was asked what the boundaries of “Palestine” are. He replied that “all Palestinians agree that the just boundaries of Palestine are the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Realistically, whatever can be obtained now should be accepted and that subsequent events perhaps in the next fifteen or twenty years would present an opportunity to realize the just boundaries of Palestine.”

Ahmad Khomeini, son of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, says…Iran’s Islamic revolution has awakened all the Islamic countries… …Islam recognizes no borders. We cannot put off establishing Islamic governments and administering the divine laws. The objective of the Islamic Republic and its officials is none other than to establish a global Islamic rule… … Political means and methods may differ, but no revolutionary Muslim ever forgets the objective. {Ahmad Khomeini, in Kayham, Teheran, 11 January 1992}.

"Allah is the only one that must be worshipped on Earth, and the only way to guarantee this is to control all the land masses, air and sea and give Islam the proper channel to be heard by the people." (Sheikh Abu Hamza Al-Masri, Allah's Governance on Earth)

"We need to initiate the movement of Islamic revival in some Muslim country in order to fashion an example that will eventually lead Islam to its destiny of world dominion." (Sayyed Qutb)

“Once the Islamic state is established, the current rulers will be prosecuted, some will flee to the West but the West will not help them.. This is the end of every agent.” (Sermon Al-Aqsa Mosque, Friday, 26 May 2000)

“We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history.

The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.” (excerpts from a Friday sermon on Palestinian Authority TV. Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris, sermon on May 13, 2005)

Fayiz Azzam in Brooklyn in 1989: “Blood must flow, there must be widows, orphans, hands and limbs must be severed and limbs and blood must be spread everywhere in order that Allah's religion stand on its feet!”

“Jihad is here. We must wage Jihad against the enemies of Allah here. The enemies of Allah are in our midst. They claim to be Muslims, although they are as far as can be from Islam. They call themselves "reformists" or "preachers," and say that we support the West. They are hostile to us on these grounds. .. My brothers, the danger is even greater. Even those people have become tools in the hands of the enemies.

Unless we face reality with truth, courage, and evidence, and if we do not stop all the transgressors, who try to distort Islam with their claims of reform and their corrupt progress - this will be dangerous. These people have been tempted by the West, and have been employed in its service. We are familiar with their relations with foreign elements. We are fighting them and will continue to fight them, and we will cut off their tongues” (9/25/2006 Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abd Al-'Aziz)

Hmmmmmm. So there's a prima facie case, at least, that certain echelons of the Muslim community are not as benign as the MCB would have us believe.

Islamicization by population growth

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

The old enemy, the CFR, claims:

The Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than that of non-Muslim Europeans, which is declining, writes Omer Taspinar, the co-director of The Brookings Institution's project on Turkey. The Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years to 4 percent of the European Union's population.

A counter claim is:

The Population Reference Bureau reports on a fascinating study by demographers who found that Muslim women who immigrated to Western Europe showed significant decreases in their total fertility rate over the past few decades. While the total fertility rate for Muslim women remains significantly higher than their European counterparts, the gap is closing between the Europeans and the immigrants.

Wiki has:

According to the German Central Institute Islam Archive, the total number of Muslims in Europe in 2007 was about 53 million, including 16 million in the European Union.

It's very difficult to get accurate statistics and when one googles "muslim birthrate statistics in europe" or any variation of these words, one gets only political rhetoric, half trying to disprove some video which came out about the Islamicization of Europe and the other half claiming stats without their source.

I'm not prepared to go with those but this one seems to quote a source:

Muslim, Sikh and Hindu households in Great Britain are larger than households headed by someone of another religion. In 2001, households headed by a Muslim were largest, with an average size of 3.8 people, followed by households headed by Sikhs (3.6 people) and Hindus (3.2 people). A third of Muslim households (34 per cent) contained more than five people, as did 28 per cent of Sikh and 19 per cent of Hindu households.

Jewish, Christian and Buddhist households were smaller – each with an average size of 2.3 people. These groups have an older age structure than the other religious groups, and contain a higher proportion of one-person households. Over 30 per cent of these households contained only one person, compared with between 13 and 15 per cent of Sikh, Hindu or Muslim households.

Muslim households also contained the highest number of children. A quarter (25 per cent) of Muslim households contained three or more dependent children, compared with 14 per cent of Sikh, 7 per cent of Hindu, and 5 per cent of Christian households.

The differences in the presence of children reflect partly the younger age structure of the Muslim population, and the intentions of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. The average intended number of children among Pakistani and Bangladeshi women was 3.4 and 3.6 respectively, compared with 2.4 among Indian women and 2.1 among White women.

Dr. Peter Hammond [Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat], is hardly neutral in this. He's an evangelical Christian of the old type, the type which puts itself under fire to deliver the Bible to outlying areas of Christianity and so though his remarks are quite possibly true, it needs to be borne in mind where he's coming from:

"When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works -- percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%"

Implications of Sharia Law


American Thinker listed some of the implications for a community if Sharia Law is imposed. Clearly, different countries have different approaches and I know this from a comparison of the way Islam is followed in Russia, compared to the way it's followed, say, in Iran. I have a fair idea of the Indonesian situation.

What follows is, quite clearly, a selective list of the more extreme elements but it is legitimate to include because it's not what people do when all is going well which constitutes their mindsets - it's what happens under duress and how far people adhering to certain life principles would go down an inhumane path.

Some articles at the end of links appear to have been removed now:


As early as 1978, Saudi Arabia sentenced nine Britons to flogging for drinking alcohol. The webpage has a photo of how the police carry out the sentence.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see Quran 24:2 and this article analyzing the verse). They were also flogged for drinking alcohol.

In 2003 in Saudi Arabia, an Australian was sentenced to be flogged and imprisoned for smuggling alcohol.

In 2004, the Canadian Islamic Congress recommends banning alcohol from college campuses, even for the faculty.

In 2005, an Iranian judge sentenced another drinker to eighty lashes. Fortunately, the sentence was commuted to one lash with eighty twigs bound together. The man was sick, so the judge changed his sentence to this one hit instead of eighty different lashes.

In 2005 in Nigeria, a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.

Caned in front of the mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

Wife beating. The more this cleric explains the reasonableness of the law and how a woman is also permitted to beat a man by getting another man to do it, the deeper they dig the pit. There should be no beating of any kind in the first place. In a civilized society, violence is simply not condoned.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.

In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancee.

In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

It reads like a horror story. Here are some severed hands. In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation).

AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

The Quran says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:

An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'

The most frightening part of it is that the laws of the host nation itself are allowing this to go on:

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law.

That is plain wrong.

In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.

One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a Sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a Sharia divorce court in Australia as well.

Conclusion

Until this post, I've not gone all out on this matter though I'm clearly not neutral, due to the material I've cared to present. As stated above, there's little point in addressing how a group of people react when things are going normally. Even Al Qaeda have breakfast in the morning, just as we do. The thing to address is what a group is essentially about and how much they are prepared to condone.

What Islam condones, in its extreme form, is deeply disturbing and I would suggest that it has absolutely no place in western society. It is polarizing in a society which has already become polarized in so many other ways and while the right to worship as one wishes is a cornerstone of the libertarian stance, even the Libertarian-Lite stance which recognizes the rule of law, I believe Hammond's analysis is sound - that the extent to which the repugnant aspects of this world view and its practices come to the fore is proportional to the population percentage which embraces it in any given community.

There is no hatred in this for fellow citizens who are Muslim and I'll continue to befriend any Muslim who's a nice guy. My beef is with the system, which is obviously not benign in what it has on its books, allows and even encourages in the Mosques. Just as with the Indians and the Chinese populations in Malaysia, just as with the Fiji situation, it does come down, in the end, to the "clout" which sheer numbers give to the movers and shakers within any highly organized world view.

The system needs to be opposed with all legitimate means at our disposal, short of violence. In fact, legal and administrative moves might just preclude the very thing we fear - mass violence in the streets, a most un-British thing, aside from Wat Tyler and various uprisings through history.

Anyone coming into this country or being born into it, needs to adopt and assume our traditions, our heritage and our culture,which are quite easily defined. This country has always had a vaguely pagan element to its Christianity, it's always been pragmatic and polite, always a bit superior in its manner and it's been based for millennia on the Judaeo-Christian precepts and a developed system of law and system of education.

That's what Britain still represents, despite the rewriting of the textbooks from where children gain their sense of their own heritage, textbooks which are going to be replaced with the restoration of the proper texts, once the pendulum swings back that way and people wish to rediscover who they are. They can start with a short trip to Russia to pick up texts freely available over there and slowly, we might once again become capable of getting our heads screwed on right about what it means to be British.

This is the Britain that any Brit grows up in or adopts when he/she comes here. The dog wags the tail, the tail does not wag the dog, nor does the tail trot along beside the dog, presenting itself as an alternative dog in its own right. The insidious and cynical playing on British tolerance, in order to further the crazed agenda of world religious domination, needs to cease henceforth, not least for the safety of its own devotees.

I'm not suggesting that we do as the Romans did in slaughtering the druids at Anglesey, quite the opposite in fact. I'm suggesting, in very strong terms, that we use all legal means at our diposal to halt this pernicious sytem which has already dug its roots into this island nation and to remind any Muslim, Sikh, Nigerian, New Zealander or whoever that the right to remain on these islands carries with it certain obligations.


26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes! See this post. Strategic misdirection now affects us at the highest levels.

http://icsr.info/blog-item.php?id=116

UBERMOUTH said...

Terrifying,wonderful post James.
I was just thinking the other day how brave you are to write such posts and how vital your voice is in the sphere. I hope that you will not be threatened by the Muslim community.

I was shocked and disappointed to read that Canada has allowed a Sharia Law Court.

I think that our religious tolerance and anti-discrimination laws allow for such abuses of same to occur, giving such religions the foothold to eradicate our own religions/customs/laws. And it all begins with the seemingly innocuous banning of the word
'Christmas' and wearing their head scarfs in Western schools.

I am all for immigration and racial/religious acceptance[as opposed to tolerance] BUT when one emigrates they MUST assimilate and become one with their host country.If they can't/won't accept this then they should stay home where the religion/laws/customs suit them better.

As you know I have lived amongst the Muslim community and have a great many positive things to say about their peoples, as do you, but I concur that even the most peaceable Muslim believes their natural place in the world is one of dominance; an Islamic world rule. That fact is not even in dispute.

Your stats and what occurs dependant on the Muslim demographics in any country are mind boggling and nothing short of terrifying.

I hope that many people will pick up this post of yours and publish it around the sphere.

jams o donnell said...

THere's a lot to take in here but one this does strike me:

Muslims are not a homogenous group. Sunnis and Shi'ites will spend plenty of time beating the hell out of each other given the chance (see Iraq). That said the extreme end of both strands are poisonous

The extreme ends do find adherents, far too many of them (by my definition one falls in that category) but like any other group in this country, immigrant or other wise, follow the lead of the man who runs you corner shop. THat is the case for the great majority of muslims in this country.

As for Peter Hammond when he talks about countries with a 40% "with widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare"

He mentions Bosnia. Err In that case the Bosniaks were rather more sinned against than sinning. I do appreciate though that the area does have a vicious backstory.

jams o donnell said...

Err when would Muslims seek to ban Christmas, given the status of Jesus in Islam?

James Higham said...

I did once see a quote from an Imam and also from a Rabbi, about two Christmases ago, quite puzzled why the authorities, in what they perceived as a Christian dominant nation, would want to ban and rename their own major festivals.

I'd like to know why any religion's festivals which are peculiar to that religion's traditions should be renamed. Rename Armed Forces' Day or a neutral day - naturally.

I would be dead against Ramadan being renamed because someone is offended by it. If that was going on, I'd go out and join the Muslims in their festivities, just to protect their right to have it.

James Higham said...

[By the way, I was out today and will be round visiting this evening, later on.]

jams o donnell said...

Then again the stories about banning Christmas usually turn out to be a pile of crap. eg Birmingham and Winterval. Birmingham didn't ban Xmas, it was just a name for a range of activities over the winter period

UBERMOUTH said...

They did not ban Christmas but the word. Muslims do not celebrate Christmas,obviously. Nor do they believe in Christ.

UBERMOUTH said...

Let me clarify they do not believe in Christ in the same way we do[as in son of God].

xlbrl said...

We spoke once before about the illicit love affair between Socialism and Islam.

G. K. CHESTERTON
A man making the confession of any creed worth ten minutes’ intelligent talk, is always a man who gains something and gives up something. So long as he does both he can create; for he is making an outline and a shape.
Mohamet created, when he forbade wine but allowed five wives: he created a very big thing, which we have still to deal with.
A man peaching a platitude is far more intolerant that a man preaching what he admits is a paradox. It was exactly because it seemed self-evident, to Moslems as to Bolshevists, that their simple creed was suited to everybody, that they wished in that particular sweeping fashion to impose it on everybody. It was because Islam was broad that Moslems were narrow. And because it was not a hard religion it was a heavy rule. Because it was without a self-correcting complexity, it allow of those simple and masculine but mostly rather dangerous appetites that show themselves in a chieftain or a lord.. As it had the simplest sort of religion, monotheism, so it had the simplest form of government, monarchy. There was exactly the same direct spirit in its despotism as in its deism. The Code, the Common Law, the give and take of charters and chivalric vows, did not grow in that golden desert. The great sun was in the sky and the great Saladin was in his tent, and he must be obeyed unless he was assassinated. Those who complain of our creeds as elaborate often forget that the elaborate Western creeds have produced the elaborate Western constitutions; and they are elaborate because they are emancipated.

LUDWIG VON MISES
The real significance of the Lenin revolution is to be seen in the fact that it was the bursting forth of the principle of unrestricted violence and oppression. It was the negation of all the political ideals that had for three thousand years guided the evolution of Western civilization.

So they have found each other. There is no question in my mind who is the greater enemy.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

I would agree wih you that british tolerance has just been pushed too far, James and that there are some very dangerous elements in British society now.

Btw, I'm a left liberal, but I always tell my classes that about the Celts.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Agree about rights and obligations too. One of the most sickening sights I saw on the news after the Danish cartoons affair was people marching with placards saying, "We don't want your freedom" . They could see no irony in this and gave no thought to the fact that it was British freedom that gave them the right to march in the first place.

Winfred Mann said...

"The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world."

This is the problem that, as you indicate, the leftists wish to ignore (hide), so that they my impose their world design upon the world.

It's time to review, Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism."

I do wish to read this again when I have sufficient time to give it a through going over.

Great compilation, James.

jams o donnell said...

Despite what Ghesterton may have written decades ago there are many of us on the left who do not play the stupid cultural relativism game

James Higham said...

Perhaps left and right are therefore pointless terms.

xlbrl said...

"Despite what Chesterton may have written decades ago there are many of us on the left who do not play the stupid cultural relativism game."

There can be nothing so stupid as a man who ignores a deadly game.
To paraphrase Orwell, there are games it does not take two to play. Not playing is not a method of staying out, it is the surest way of losing it.

Playing games is all the left does, only they insist the games be of their own design. It is a hallmark of the left to ignore and disparage the past; they would see their old footprints of failure repeated in it and that would be very inconvenient to their present opinions.

James post raises an interesting question I would apply to the Chesterton and Hayek. That is the level of Muslim population--small in itself--that triggers ever greater socialist appeasment dysfunction. Certainly if 2% does damage, 5% Muslim meeting 25% Socialist is a powerful incendiary device. But like nytroglycerin, it is also apt to escape the control of its handlers.

I suspect that will provide the Tom Paine moment: Evils, like poison, have their uses, and there are diseases which no other remedy can reach.

The disease that must be reached is socialism.

IftikharA said...

The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a safe environment with an Islamic ethos.Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won't feel stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith.
Muslim schools are working to try to create a bridge between communities.

There is a belief among ethnic minority parens that the British schooling does not adequatly address their cultural needs. Failing to meet this need could result in feeling resentment among a group who already feel excluded. Setting up Muslim school is a defensive response.

State schools with monolingual teachers are not capable to teach English to bilingual Muslim children. Bilingual teachers are needed to teach English to such children along with their mother tongue. According to a number of studies, a child will not learn a second language if his first language is ignored.

Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslims
have the right to educate their children in an environment that suits their culture. This notion of "integration", actually means "assimilation", by which people generally really mean "be more like me". That is not
multiculturalism. In Sydney, Muslims were refused to build a Muslim school, because of a protest by the residents. Yet a year later, permission was
given for the building of a Catholic school and no protests from the residents. This clrearly shows the blatant hypocrisy, double standards and racism. Christians oppose Muslim schools in western countries yet build
their own religious schools.

British schooling and the British society is the home of institutional racism. The result is that Muslim children are unable to develop self-confidence and self-esteem, therefore, majority of them leave schools with low grades. Racism is deeply rooted in British society. Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism, therefore, no law could change the attitudes of racism towards those who are different. It is not only the common man, even member of the royal family is involved in racism. The
father of a Pakistani office cadet who was called a "***" by Prince Harry has profoundly condemned his actions. He had felt proud when he met the Queen and the Prince of Wales at his son's passing out parade at Sandhurst
in 2006 but now felt upset after learning about the Prince's comments. Queen Victoria invited an Imam from India to teach her Urdu language. He was highly respected by the Queen but other members of the royal family had no respect for him. He was forced to go back to India. His protrait is still in one of the royal places.

There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim pupils are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools with bilingual Muslim teachers. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.
Iftikhar Ahmad
London School of Islamics Trust
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

James Higham said...

Thank you, Iftikhar A for your explanation and of course it will stand here and be debated.

My aim is to get to the truth of this issue and if my post seems biased, it is because of what I have discovered.

If you can present a different picture, it can only add to the knowledge base.

Winfred Mann said...

Muslim schools in America have been caught teaching "hatred of the West," thus sewing the seeds of terrorism. If Muslims want to maintain their culture, they can stay in their homelands.

Sharia Law is not compatible with Western Civil Law; mush of Sharia Law is a crime in civil society.

xlbrl said...

"Sharia Law is not compatible with Western Civil Law; much of Sharia Law is a crime in civil society."
That is the long and short of it.

There are very good reasons for approaching present British school culture with extreme caution. At anytime in the past, the presence of the immigrant would be an asset and corrective influence to the weaknesses of native culture. Now we have the spectacle of a cuture that exhalts primitivism competing with one that is also moving in that direction by other means. A two for one special.

"According to a number of studies, a child will not learn a second language if his first language is ignored." As a wise man once said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The American statistics agree with the vast American experience. Children do not learn when they are not immersed in the new language. They are, in fact, pidgeonholed. Which is surely compatible with Muslim aims. Assimilation is not the object.

More than Islam, there are two things that repel civilizing influences on men. One is polygamy. The second is first cousin marriage as a common and preferred form of marriage. They are of course completly compatible with Islam.

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

"Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism": This is hardly fair. I would not deny that there is some racism in Britain, as there is elsewhere, but I take exception to that. Many British people spend their lives fighting racism and British society is the most tolerant in the worrld, for all its faults. In fact, it could be argued that it is its very tolerance which has landed it in its current mess.

As a linguist and an educator, I of course believe that children should be taught their mother tongues; it is very sad when these are lost. I would, however, argue that the medium through which English should be taught to Speakers of Other Languages is English, so bilingual teachers are not needed for the teaching of English. I would concede, though, that teachers of ESOL need to be trained in that specific skill; they should not be teachers of GCSE English with its literary focus and language focus which assumes all learners are native speakers unless they also have an ESOL qualification.
As for children being stigmatised for being Muslim, we do have legislation about this and a school would allow this to happen as a peril . I have witnessed, in secondary school playgrounds, Muslim children ganging up on Christian children from predominantly Muslim countries and yelling at them , "You should be Muslim, Muslim, Muslim" so I would suggest that any stigmatisation cuts both ways.
"There is no place for a non-Muslim child or teacher in a Muslim school": but the school is in Britain and Britain is a multi-cultural society!! If it weren't, the Muslim school could not exist. How are the children there going to cope with British society if they have no contact with British educators?

Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Correction: paragraph 3, line 3: I of course meant "at its peril".

James Higham said...

I have to agree with you, Welshcakes. The lack of logic in the justification of the need for the all-Islamic school within Britain just doesn't hold water in the terms Mr. Iftikhar stated it.

UBERMOUTH said...

IftakharA:

'Racism is deeply rooted in British society. Every native child is born with a gene or virus of racism, therefore, no law could change the attitudes of racism towards those who are different.'

Not only does this smack of the bigotry you denounce it is in direct contradiction of your pleas for tolerance when in conjunction with this further statement:
'There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school.'

I want to preface my next statement with I hold no water with racism and was in fact married to a Muslim[and know intimately the positives and negatives of your cultural differences,which every culture has] BUT when a Westerner goes to any Islamic nation they are expected to obey your laws and cultures and so why would you feel that when in ours your peoples are exempt from ours?

If a Muslim wants to emigrate to the West then they should expect to be educated /abide by Western cultures save where they impede on their individual rights and freedoms which should NOT extend to the host country publicly funding your distinct educational requirements. The Muslim communities should fund their own mosques and schools if they are required if you opt out of ours.
And, in my opinion, that goes for any demoninations.

Muslims[or any other immigrant] cannot expect to emigrate and then turn the host country into a replica of 'back home' and expect the host country to evolve into a foreign land to suit their needs.
Yours wouldn't either,understandably.

As I use to say to my own husband, if he does not like our system/culture/laws the planes fly BOTH ways.

UBERMOUTH said...

'demoninations'= denominations. LOL

Harry Hook said...

"I'm a WASP"
Yeh... I like Stingray to!

Some interesting quotes on the LSI website...
"Liberal totalitarianism is a growing phenomenon in Britain and the west... "
Agreed.
"Rather than filling the heads of impressionable boys and girls with fatuous drivel about gay penguins, schools should be ashamed of the fact that they are sending children out into the world barely able to read, write and add up properly."
Iftikhar Ahmad... Urdu for Richard Littlejohn.
"The sexualisation of children by the government, Dept of Education, 'pregnancy advice centres', social workers, school nurses, media aimed at teen girls, contraceptive industry lobbyists, fashion industry and the welfare state to name just a few, is a crime against humanity."
Blimey... he's got a point.
"Muslim schools, in spite of meager resources, have excelled to a further extent this year, with two schools achieving 100% A-C grades for five or more GCSEs. They beat well resourced state and independent schools in Birmingham and Hackney."
Very true, very true and watching them play they seem like happy kids from the 50's... giggling... mischievous... polite etc.

Having read through the site... this bloke sounds like he's more of a British conservative than me.